“The Bear Market Economics Phenomenon” is an observation of Political Economics. Wall Street Admits: ‘We Got Rich Off the Backs of Workers’ thus creating the Bear Market. The Bear Market is America's default war.
The ethic of Wall Street is the ethic of celebrity. It is fused into one bizarre, perverted belief system and it has banished the possibility of the country returning to a reality-based world or avoiding internal collapse. A society that cannot distinguish reality from illusion dies.

FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

It Wasn't Only Cheney Who Had Assassination Programs: Clinton Did It, and Obama Does It, Too

While the current focus is on Dick Cheney's role concealing these nefarious missions, the U.S. has long had a bipartisan assassination policy.

Members of Congress have expressed outrage over the "secret" CIA assassination program that former Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly ordered concealed from Congress.

But this program -- and the media descriptions of it -- sounds a lot like the assassination policy implemented by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office.

Partisan politics often require selective amnesia. Over the past decade, we have seen this amnesia take hold when it comes to many of President George W. Bush's most vile policies. And we are now seeing a pretty severe case overtake several leading Democrats.

It makes for good speechifying to act as though all criminality began with Bush and -- particularly these days -- Cheney, but that is extreme intellectual dishonesty. The fact is that many of Bush's worst policies (now being highlighted by leading Democrats) were based in some form or another in a Clinton-initiated policy, or were supported by the Democrats in Congress with their votes.

To name a few: the USA PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, the attack against Afghanistan, the CIA's extraordinary-rendition program, the widespread use of mercenaries and other private contractors in U.S. war zones and warrantless wiretapping.

Regarding the Bush-era assassination program, there is great reason to be skeptical the program that CIA Director Leon Panetta alleges was concealed from Congress is actually the program the public is being led to believe it is.

Why would the CIA need to conceal a program that never was implemented and, if it never was implemented, why did Panetta need to shut it down? Moreover, who was running this inactive program from the minute Barack Obama was sworn in until June 24, when Panetta supposedly announced its cancellation?

This program -- as it is currently being described -- should hardly be a major scandal to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, as some are now treating it. As they well know, Obama has continued the Bush targeted-assassination program, using armed drones and Special Forces teams to hunt "high-value targets."

Former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro and others have pointed out, "The CIA runs drones and targets al-Qaida safe houses all the time." Cannistraro told Talking Points Memo that there is no important difference between those kinds of attacks and "assassinations" with a gun or a knife.

Now, if it turns out that the actual plan Cheney allegedly concealed is something other than what has been publicly described, that will be a different matter. For instance, if the CIA had a secret post-9/11 program planning assassinations on U.S. soil or of U.S. citizens, and it was ordered concealed by Cheney. Or, if it was a plan to target in other ways "enemies of the state" within the U.S., as Seymour Hersh has suggested.

"The Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state," Hersh said in March. "Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet. That does happen."

Let's look at the program the Democrats claim was kept secret. The Bush administration reportedly authorized the CIA to use small paramilitary teams to hunt down and assassinate "al-Qaida" leaders around the world. It is currently being reported that this plan was never implemented and was born after 9/11. Both of these assertions are very, very doubtful.

The plan, as currently described in the media and by Democrats, is one that continues to exist under the Obama administration. In fact, this program has been part of official U.S. policy -- under Democratic and Republican administrations -- for decades.

By way of background, technically, there is a U.S. ban on assassination that dates to President Gerald Ford in 1976. "No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination," states Executive Order 11905. That was updated by President Jimmy Carter, who dropped the term "political," simply prohibiting "assassination." The current Executive Order, 12333, was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and has remained on the books through every administration since.

What is brutally ironic about Reagan signing this ban was that he authorized repeated assassinations, notably the 1986 attempt on Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi, which failed to kill Gadhafi, but killed his infant daughter.

But in that brutal apparent contradiction is the truth: The U.S. does not have a ban on assassinations as long as government lawyers can figure out some legal acrobatics for the president to use in sidelining the ban. Every president from Reagan to Obama has reserved the right to assassinate "terrorists" by claiming it as a military operation or a pre-emptive strike.

It is pretty clear that when the Bush administration took over, it picked up the Clinton administration's assassination policy and ran with it -- albeit with more of a missionary zeal for killing, and a removal of some of the layers of lawyering. In short, the Bush team expanded and streamlined the longstanding U.S. government assassination program.

Throughout the 1990s, the question of covert assassinations was a source of major discussion within the Clinton White House, and it is clear assassinations were attempted with presidential approval.

Newsweek magazine reported on how, in 1995, U.S. Special Forces facilitated the assassination of a Libyan "terrorist" in Bosnia, saying, "American authorities justified the assassination under a little-known 1993 'lethal finding' signed by President Bill Clinton that gave permission to target terrorists."

A former senior Clinton official, speaking shortly after the 9/11 attacks, called on the Bush administration not to escalate the U.S. assassination program, saying, "We have a war on drugs, too, but we don't kill drug lords." But then, with no apparent sense of contradiction, the official added, "we have proxies who do."

Clinton-era officials' attempt to hide behind "proxies" is a stunning trampling of the assassination ban as it exists. Not only does it ban U.S. government personnel from engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, "assassination," it also bans "indirect participation": "No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."

The truth is, under Clinton, it wasn't just proxies authorized to do the assassinations.

The Clinton White House worked for years with the CIA to craft an assassination policy -- specifically relating to al-Qaida in general, and Osama bin Laden and his top deputies specifically.

CIA operatives such as Billy Waugh complained in the early and middle years of the Clinton presidencies that they were lawyered to death by Clinton's attorneys in their attempts to get the green light to kill bin Laden in Sudan.

"[I]n the early 1990s, we were forced to adhere to the sanctimonious legal counsel and the do-gooders," recalled Waugh. Among Waugh's rejected ideas was an alleged plot to kill bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, and dump his body at the Iranian Embassy in an effort to pin the blame on Tehran. Eventually, however, Clinton did authorize what amounted to assassination squads to hunt down and kill bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. That happened officially in 1998 with Clinton's signing of a Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to carry out covert assassinations.

George W. Bush was not the president and Dick Cheney was not the vice president. Panetta was then Clinton's chief of staff, from 1994 to 1997, and would have been party to years worth of discussion on this issue.

Under Clinton, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued secret rulings that the Ford/Reagan ban on assassinations did not apply to "military targets or "to attacks carried out in pre-emptive self-defense," according to Steve Coll, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Ghost Wars.

Shortly after 9/11, Clinton stated this position publicly, supporting the Bush administration's "war on terror" targeted-assassination policy, saying on NBC News, "The ban that was put in effect under President Ford only applies to heads of state. It doesn't apply to terrorists." That is a stunning statement that is a true legal stretch given the explicit language of the ban.

Moreover, Clinton did, in fact, try to kill a head of state, on April 22, 1999, when he ordered a NATO air strike on the home of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton and Gen. Wesley Clark also authorized an assassination attempt on Serbian Information Minister Aleksander Vucic, bombing Radio Television Serbia when Vucic was scheduled to appear via satellite on CNN's Larry King Live. Vucic was not killed, but 16 media workers were.

Clinton also publicly acknowledged his administration's attempt to assassinate bin Laden. "I worked hard to try to kill him," Clinton said. "I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said after Clinton issued his 1998 "lethal finding," U.S. operatives worked with Afghan rebels for two years in an attempt to kill bin Laden. "There were a few points when the pulse quickened, when we thought we were close," Berger later recalled. Among the alleged attempts on bin Laden's life by Clinton was the 1998 bombing of Afghanistan (which was coupled with a massive strike on the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan).

Coll observed of the Clinton policy: "Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest."

After 9/11, the CIA, which had been frustrated by some of the hurdles to assassination posed by the Clinton administration's legal team, now had the conditions and the commander in chief it needed to take its assassination program to the next level.

The main operations were run out of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center (CTC) headed by J. Cofer Black, who had served as Clinton's CIA station chief in Sudan when bin Laden was there in the 1990s. After 9/11, Black's division at the CIA was authorized by Bush -- with the consent of Congress -- to hunt down bin Laden and others alleged to be responsible for 9/11. As I describe in my book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army:

Before the core CIA team, Jawbreaker, deployed [to Afghanistan] on Sept. 27, 2001, Black gave his men direct and macabre directions. "Gentlemen, I want to give you your marching orders, and I want to make them very clear. I have discussed this with the president, and he is in full agreement," Black told covert CIA operative Gary Schroen. "I don't want bin Laden and his thugs captured, I want them dead … They must be killed. I want to see photos of their heads on pikes. I want bin Laden's head shipped back in a box filled with dry ice. I want to be able to show bin Laden's head to the president. I promised him I would do that."

Schroen said it was the first time in his 30-year career he had been ordered to assassinate an adversary rather than attempting a capture. Black asked if he had made himself clear. "Perfectly clear, Cofer," Schroen told him. "I don't know where we'll find dry ice out there in Afghanistan, but I think we can certainly manufacture pikes in the field." Black later explained why this would be necessary. "You'd need some DNA," Black said. "There's a good way to do it. Take a machete, and whack off his head, and you'll get a bucketful of DNA, so you can see it and test it. It beats lugging the whole body back!"

The actions of the teams run by Black were certainly known to Congress. In fact, Black testified in front of Congress in 2002 about what he called the new "operational flexibility" being employed in the "war on terror."

"This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11, the gloves come off." By 2004, Black claimed that "over 70 percent" of al-Qaida's leadership had been arrested, detained, or killed, and "more than 3,400 of their operatives and supporters have also been detained and put out of an action."

The existence of this program is not secret. It has been documented in books by former CIA operatives, is discussed in public speeches by former officials and is reflected extensively in the congressional record.

Obviously, the House and Senate intelligence committees should investigate the assassination policy under the Bush administration. Cheney's role is central to that. Prosecutors should also be authorized to do the same. If there is a nefarious program the public is unaware of and it was unlawfully concealed, it should be brought out into the light.

But, the truth is that a real investigation -- one that actually seeks to get to the broader truths of these matters -- would require investigating the current assassination program under Obama and the roots of the program that preceded the day when George W. Bush took power. That means looking at the Clinton White House and further back. It means looking at both Democratic and Republican assassination teams.

The sad fact is that nobody on Capitol Hill has demonstrated in any way that he or she has the political courage to do that.

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at Rebel Reports.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

In These Times WEB ONLY / FEATURES » APRIL 26, 2016 Thomas Frank on How Democrats Went From Being the ‘Party of the People’ to the P...

The Bear Marketplace

The Bear Market Dynamic

Our faith in capitalistic institutions promotes the pretense of democracy, while it delivers plutocracy, corporate fascism, and militarism. Similarly, imprudent belief in the American Dream induces people to behave in ways that promote the welfare of those in power rather than the perspectives of those of us struggling to be free. Belief in this discredited notion keeps workers from organizing against their oppressors.

Wouldn't universal health care for all, or at least a public option for those who have been exposed, namely all U.S. citizens, be a sim...

“Bear Market Economics” is an expression of Political Economics, an interdisciplinary field focusing on the non-market, collective, and political activity of individuals and organizations. Specific fields of inquiry include regulation, distributive politics, elections, corporate politics, public policy, social welfare, scientific and science policy, political participation and collective action, interest groups, constitutional choice, legislative behavior and organization, judicial institutions, bureaucracies, comparative institutions, cooperative political economy, macro political economy, allocation of resources, the environment, ecology, law and economics, business and government, how markets affect and impact the public and the commons. The orientation to these topics tends to be positive rather than normative.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The American Capitalist Way

Capitalism is preferentially identified by its euphemisms: "Free Enterprise," "market system," "private enterprise." "the American Way," etc. Overt and pervasive partisanship in support of capitalism is not regarded by the American media as an ideological bias negating professional "objectivity" but rather comparable to the serene acceptance of natural laws.